Probationary employee with depression and anxiety loses disability discrimination case against London Fire Commissioner
A Booking Coordinator who was dismissed during her probation for attendance issues failed to prove disability discrimination. The tribunal found the London Fire Commissioner acted reasonably given her short service and multiple probation extensions.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed as a Booking Coordinator on a fixed-term contract from 17 February 2020.
- The Claimant's probation was extended multiple times due to performance and attendance issues.
- The Claimant raised grievances alleging bullying and harassment against her line manager.
- The Claimant was dismissed on 16 July 2021 due to unsatisfactory attendance during probation.
- The Employment Judge found the Claimant became disabled (depression and anxiety) on 25 May 2021.
- The Tribunal dismissed all claims of disability discrimination and victimisation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced role as Booking Coordinator in Safety First Team on fixed-term contract.
-
First standard setting letter
Claimant received a letter regarding performance and conduct under probation procedure.
-
Probation extended to November 2020
Probation extended by 3 months due to Covid-19 impact.
-
First sickness absence
Claimant absent from 1-25 October 2020 with work-related stress.
-
Probation extended to February 2021
Probation extended further due to attendance issues.
-
Second grievance raised
Claimant submitted a grievance about probation, bullying, and health.
-
Safety First meeting incident
Claimant raised concerns in a meeting with external funders, leading to management criticism.
-
Probation hearing
Held by Ms Patel; probation extended by 4 months to 2 July 2021.
-
Long-term sickness absence began
Claimant absent from work until dismissal.
-
Disability date
Employment Judge Dyal found Claimant disabled from this date.
-
Dismissal decision
Ms Biggs decided to dismiss Claimant due to unsatisfactory attendance.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's last day of service.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the London Fire Commissioner failed to make reasonable adjustments for the employee's depression and anxiety, discriminated against her because of something arising from her disability, or victimised her for raising grievances.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the employee became disabled on 25 May 2021, but her dismissal on 16 July 2021 was due to unsatisfactory attendance during probation, not her disability. The employer had extended her probation multiple times and considered adjustments, but her attendance remained poor.
Key reasons:
- The employer did not know of the disability until after the dismissal decision was made.
- The attendance issues predated the disability and were not caused by it.
- The employer had a legitimate reason to dismiss based on probationary standards.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Probationary employees have fewer protections; employers can dismiss for poor attendance or performance if they follow a fair process.
- Disability discrimination claims require proof that the employer knew or ought to have known about the disability at the time of the decision.
- Raising grievances does not automatically protect against dismissal if there are genuine performance or attendance issues.
- Employers should consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, but are not required to retain staff who cannot meet essential attendance requirements.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the challenges faced by employees on probation who develop health conditions. The Booking Coordinator had her probation extended several times due to performance and attendance concerns before she became disabled by depression and anxiety. When she was eventually dismissed for unsatisfactory attendance, she argued that the London Fire Commissioner should have made reasonable adjustments and that her dismissal was linked to her disability.
The tribunal disagreed. It found that the employer's concerns about attendance were genuine and predated the disability. The decision to dismiss was made just before the employee's disability status was confirmed, and the employer had already offered support and extended probation multiple times.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employee might have strengthened her case by providing medical evidence earlier and engaging more proactively with the employer's occupational health process. However, given the short service and the employer's documented attempts to support her, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was a proportionate response.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that disability discrimination claims are not automatic wins even when an employee has a recognised condition. Employers must know about the disability and the link between the disability and the reason for dismissal. For employees on probation, the bar for proving discrimination is particularly high, as employers have more latitude to dismiss for poor attendance or performance during the probationary period.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim fails: no breach of trust and confidence at GP practice
A clinical administrator who resigned after a return-to-work dispute lost her constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
Supply teacher wins right to add victimisation claim against school
A tribunal allowed a supply teacher to amend her disability discrimination claim to include victimisation, and later granted an anonymity order after initially refusing it.
Disabled employee required to prove medical appointments: victimisation and unfavourable treatment succeed
A former employee with a disability was awarded £3,892 after his employer demanded daily site diaries to verify attendance at medical appointments. The tribunal found this amounted to victimisation and unfavourable treatment arising from disability.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.